Allowed

Surendra Ram v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC12 Oct 2020A.B.A./4351/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition for anticipatory bail considered allegations regarding money collection linked to a TPC extremist organization. The High Court rejected the prosecution's suggestion regarding criminal antecedents and granted bail under specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is enlarged on bail pending surrender in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chatra, subject to deposit of security, furnishing sureties, and specific conditions.

Surendra Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 4351 of 2020

¶2

Surendra Ram … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

¶3

------

¶4

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶5

For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Snehlika Bhagat, Addl. P.P.

¶6

------

¶7

Order No.03 Dated- 12.10.2020

¶8

Heard the parties through video conferencing.

¶9

Apprehending his arrest in connection with Piparwar P.S. Case No. 36 of 2019 instituted under Sections 385,386,387,120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 17(i)(ii) C.L.A. Act and Sections 16, 17, 20, 23, U.A.P., Act, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that under protection of the Supremo of TPC extremist organization namely Barjesh Ganjhu @ Gopal Singh Bhokta and Akaraman Jee @ Ravindra and Bhikhan Ganjhu, the “Displaced Villagers Solitary Management Committee” has been organized and levy has been collected from the coal traders and D.O. holders and others associated with Piparwar Coal Project, Ashoka Project Kanta, Kalyanpur Kanta and Purnadih Coal Project by putting the victims in fear of the TPC Extremist Organization and major part of the levy money has been given to the TPC extremist organization which has been used in criminal activity and works against the law. It is next submitted that the police party who were the members of Task Force raided the house of Naresh Ganjhu and from his house several pass-books of different banks in the name of Naresh Ganjhu, his family members, cheque books, tax receipt of the vehicle in the name of Naresh Ganjhu, several receipts and cash of Rs. 10,180/- were seized. The police also raided the house of the Bigan Bhokta who disclosed that the levy has been collected from coal traders and

¶11

D.O. Holders putting them in fear of TPC extremist organization at the rate of Rs.130/- per ton and a vast levy amount has been given to TPC extremist organization. Police raided the house of the Binay Khalkho which was found locked and also raided the house of Dhanraj Bhokta from where, six challans of “Displaced Villagers Solitary Management Committee”(Ashoka and Piparwar Area), 20 pieces of receipts of Coal Fields Loaders Association at Piparwar area and Rs. 3,74,550 cash of different denominations were recovered and seized. Dhanraj Bhokta disclosed that Rs.1,000/- per vehicle is collected by the Committee for loading coal on the vehicles and he also disclosed the name of 55 accused persons and some other employees of the Coal Project Committee, who were involved in such act. It is also alleged that the allegation against the petitioner is the that the petitioner by forming displaced villager solitary management used to extract money from the transporters coal traders and D.O. holders putting them in fear in the name of TPC Extremist Organization and large portion of collected money has been given to TPC Extremist Organization which is used in illegal activities. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the TPC Extremist Organization is not a terrorist organization in terms of the Schedule A of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. Drawing attention of this Court towards para-3 of the supplementary affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. It is also submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation of the case and to furnish sufficient security including cash security. It is lastly submitted that the co-accused person has already been given the privilege of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 05.10.2020 in A.B.A. No.3629 of 2020. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶12

Learned A.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and fairly submits that TPC organization is not a terrorist organization in terms of the

¶13

provisions of the U.A.P. Act, 1967. It is next submitted that the State Government has declared the TPC as banned organization exercising the power under Section 16 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908. It is fairly submitted that by the learned Addl. P.P. that in the case diary there is no reference of the petitioner of having any criminal antecedent.

¶14

Considering the submissions of learned counsels and the facts and circumstances stated above, I am inclined to grant privileges of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court of learned SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Chatra within eight weeks from today and in the event of his arrest or surrendering, he will be enlarged on bail on depositing Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) as cash security and on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/(Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chatra in connection with Piparwar P.S. Case No. 36 of 2019 with the condition that he will co-operate with the investigation of the case and appear before the investigating officer as and when noticed by him and furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the pendency of the case and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶15

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶16

Sonu/Gunjan-

Surendra Ram v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Ram v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rinku Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Suresh Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Deepak Rajak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Akhlesh Kumar Yadav Alias Akhilesh Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ranjit Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Teklal Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand